memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Star Trek: Borg
VfD for USS Righteous ;USS Righteous Stated as being from the "Star Trek: Borg" video game, completely non-canon. Delete asap. - AJHalliwell 16:32, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC) * Content valid, information presented in its own article is not. Redirect to Star Trek: Borg.--Alan del Beccio 16:41, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC) *'Redirect' Tobyk777 19:01, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC) *'Redirect'--Smith 23:52, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC) *'Redirect', I agree with the others. -- Miranda Jackson (Talk) 02:00, 15 Aug 2005 (UTC) *Ditto, Redirect. --Brad Rousse 02:27, 15 Aug 2005 (UTC) * merged - Alan del Beccio 23:04, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC) ** Kept as redirect as ship was filmed and was a reuse of the Excelsior model. --Alan del Beccio 00:49, 23 Aug 2005 (UTC) Star Trek: Borg :copied from User_talk:Harry_Doddema/Archive#Star_Trek:_Borg. Hi there Harry. I just wanted to pick your brains about something, if you've got the time spare. When you mentioned that (on "Requested pictures") the species names from the background information were to be considered as true fact rather than speculation, what is your opinion about Star Trek: Borg? It uses most of the same sets they used in Voyager, some of the directors, and even some of the same actors. What do you think? Zsingaya ''Talk'' 23:21, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC) :Yeah, I might as well chime in on this as well. Understandably the fact that the "movie" advertises the fact that it has (somewhat paraphased from memory) "120 minutes of original Star Trek footage," it does incorporate 95% of the resources (actors, sets, models, props, uniforms, etc) used in the creation of every other movie or series of the time, with the biggest difference being the obvious fact that it is written as a first-person interactive. Granted it is probably less accessable to the fans than TAS, I think it would be fair (or at least a good idea) to be more accepting of its content-- as long as it does not contradict canon, of course. --Alan del Beccio 01:51, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC) ::May I remind everyone that we're talking about "valid/invalid resources" as defined on and policies on MA, not about "canon/non-canon" material, and that, at the moment, "Star Trek:Borg" is not a valid resource? Any discussion concerning the addition of anything to our list of "valid resources" should probably be held on the talk page of that policy, not on an unrelated user talk or request page. -- Cid Highwind 13:44, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC) :::And I don't even know what Star Trek: Borg is! Are we talking about the crappy PC game or the ST:Experience ride? I know absolutely nothing about that last one, so IMO, it's not a valid resource :P -- Harry ''t'' 22:10, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC) : It's about Star Trek: Borg, the interactive movie produced by Rick Berman, that was filmed on the Star Trek sets using actual props, starship models, scenery, costumes, director, composer, cinematographer and performers from other filmed productions. --Alan del Beccio 22:56, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC) ::: Ah, ok.. the game. I don't see why this game is any more 'valid' than other games that use some of the actors. It does not add any valuable missing information either (as can be claimed for the FASA data points), so I guess I won't vote for this as a valid resource yet. -- 23:01, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC) : Okay, thanks. I guess my point, in as far as what makes it different, is the fact that it is live action with real character(s)/actors/sets/props, versus animated characters, which does make it different than other games that use some of the actors voices. --Alan del Beccio 23:11, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC) Other stuff sorry people on here get booty hurt cause someone else has different information. :I've restored the article in a manner sufficient with our policy, non-canon characters lik the Furlongs don't need their own articles. Thanks for helping improve this one, all your edits are merged here! -- Captain M.K.B. 20:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Sets Is it me or are most of the sets used from Star Trek: Voyager?Cofe82 06:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC) :Yes. See the background information of the newly, totally overhauled article. :) -- Sulfur 21:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)